Caroline Leeson

The education of children in care: a research review

Purpose – This paper seeks to explore three key aspects of the education of children in care: the composition of that population of children and the extent to which they differ from the general population of children due to difficulties most of them have experienced prior to as well as after entering care; issues relating to the identification of causal relationships and the extent of “underachievement” by children in care; and any evidence that care may provide more positive opportunities than is often supposed.Design/methodology/approach – The papers approach is an extensive literature review of existing published research into social policy and practice of caring for looked after children.Findings – The significant factors that contribute to better achievement for children in care are: placement stability and support at school but for some children therapeutic help and specialist assessments are necessary to improve outcomes. Different analyses produce different results and the scrutiny of childrens ...

Leading for quality improvement: a comparative research agenda in early childhood education in England and Hong Kong

This paper discusses the changing concepts of leadership in early childhood education (ECE) in England and Hong Kong during a period of significant education reform. We seek to illustrate the interplay between the impact of the policy agenda and the emerging quality leadership perspectives found in the theoretical literature, by first considering the recent education reform context in both England and Hong Kong, before examining the importance of leadership for quality provision given the constraints and drivers of policy expectation. The paper explores transformational, distributed and authentic models of leadership in the ‘New Leadership’ paradigm and uses these constructions to examine the developing problems and opportunities for quality leadership as expected by the current policy reform agenda and understood by the practitioners. In conclusion, we raise questions about the interplay between policy agendas and the development of theoretical models of leadership for ECE in England and Hong Kong.

How can schools support children with a parent in prison

Children who experience the imprisonment of a parent or close relative are more likely to have poorer outcomes including lower school attainment and an increased risk of truancy, school exclusion and socio-emotional difficulties. This paper reports on a research project, undertaken in 2011, into support provision in schools for children who experience parental imprisonment. Through the analysis of data collected by interviewing a range of representatives of schools including head-teachers, stakeholders, parents and children in one local authority in the South West of England we explore the different realities of experiencing the imprisonment of a parent or close relative. Consequently, we offer a critique of the support provision currently available and make a number of suggestions as to how schools might support this group of potentially ‘vulnerable’ children. This includes raising awareness of this group of children through the use of resources, posters and training; a focus on the individual needs of the children; an exploration of the type of support needed and when it should be available and a discussion around prison visits and how schools can enable children to maintain contact with their imprisoned parent. A key aspect of the research findings was to challenge the route of a one size fits all mentality and to offer sensitive, appropriate and bespoke service provision to each child and family experiencing the imprisonment of a parent or close relative.

Asking difficult questions: exploring research methods with children on painful issues

Assumptions about a childs competence to voice an opinion often inhibit efforts to find effective methods for participation. Answers to questions are sought from the significant adults who surround a child [Morris, J. 2003. “Including All Children: Finding Out about the Experiences of Children with Communication and/or Cognitive Impairments.” Children and Society 17: 337–348.]. Indeed, methods that ask adults rather than children about childrens lives have often been justified as the only way in which a ‘truth’ [Westcott, H. L., and K. S. Littleton. 2005. “Exploring Meaning in Interviews with Children.” In Researching Childrens Experience: Approaches and Methods. London: Sage] may be established as to how it feels to be that child, whatever their age. This stance has been increasingly challenged [Clark, A., and P. Moss 2001. Listening to Young Children the Mosaic Approach. Norwich: National Childrens Bureau] with the argument that only by ‘giving them a direct and unfettered voice’ [Winter, K. 2006. “Widening Our Knowledge Concerning Young Looked After Children: The Case for Research Using Sociological Models of Childhood.” Child and Family Social Work 11: 55–64; Winter, K. 2010. “Ascertaining the Perspectives of Young Children in Care: Case Studies using Reality Boxes.” Children and Society: The International Journal of Childhood and Childrens Services 61] can childrens views be properly sought and represented. Research looking at the experiences of children when they were taken into the care of the local authority meant that some difficult, complex, sometimes painful questions may be asked. In this paper, I explore the development and use of creative, interactive methods with children aged 4–13 that facilitated their participation and avoided causing undue distress. I also debate the importance of engaging with children where their circumstances and past experiences are distressful arguing that a relationship where listening carefully is paramount enables the childs voice to be heard.

Communicating with children: when a parent is at the end of life

tance of responding to children’s individual needs, which fits so closely with the Key Person Approach. For instance, the book’s section on Equality in Chapter 4 gives the clear message of how a Key Person Approach can help to ensure that each child’s well-being and learning is supported, particularly those who may be disadvantaged in some way and the whole book lays clear emphasis on the importance of relationships, again in line with the EYFS. However, this does mean that the text is not simply targeted at settings in England, and has potentially a wider international audience. It has become customary for authors of key texts to recommend other readings, but Elfer et al. do not do this specifically. I would recommend the book on relational pedagogy edited by Papatheodorou and Moyles as a very suitable text to research the Key Person Approach further. All in all, it is a accessible and stimulating read, with an effective mix of theory, research findings and examples from practice. It builds a very persuasive argument for adopting a Key Person Approach throughout the EYFS, addressing many of the difficulties and barriers with practical strategies, and will be of great use to both individuals and settings reviewing their practice in this area. I will be certainly be recommending this text to the students on the range of undergraduate and postgraduate Early Years courses that I teach.

Transformational coaching: a learning theory for practice, by S. Askew and E. Carnell, East London, Institute of Education, University of London, 2011, 137 pp., £22.99 (paperback), ISBN 978-0-85473-907-3

Reflective practice has become increasingly popular in recent years, especially in the field of education, and recent initiatives (National College of School Leadership (NCSL) 2004; Children’s Workforce Development Council (CWDC) 2007; Department for Children, Families and Schools (DCSF) 2008) have promoted practitioners’ reflective engagement as an effective tool to becoming mindful and creative when improving their ability to work with and respond to the children and families in their care. Whilst there has been a considerable move towards embracing reflective practice, there is still evidence of practitioners and their organisations being ambivalent to this approach, preferring the assurance of a tried and tested response to the uncertainty of judging how a more creative, bespoke method will be received (Lam, Wong, and Leung 2007). A vast literature of ‘how to’ texts has emerged to support the development of practice and to give guidance and reassurance, as have a number of critical voices describing reflective practice as navel gazing; preoccupied with self or superficial and idealistic. The main focus has been on how to reflect, with little attention given to the environment in which reflection might happen in terms of guidance and support. Thus a text that embraces these criticisms and offers help to those who would wish to create a reflective environment or culture of practice is valuable and timely. I have to say I have found this book to be influential on my practice as a lecturer in early childhood studies. I see my role as promoting reflective practice and transformational leadership, both of which are key roles for coaching and mentoring. It has made me think about the cultures in which coaching takes place and given clarity about the role of the coach and the coachee in a mutual dance of discovery, learning and creativity. It was Whalley’s work in developing the National Professional Qualification for Integrated Centre Leaders (NCSL 2004) that first emphasised the importance of collaborative learning, with the mentor walking alongside the participating leader as they learnt the tools of leadership and, most importantly, began to develop an awareness of their own leadership capacity (Isaac and Trodd 2008). What was emphasised throughout the NPQICL process was the learning together, a vital transformational activity (Pemberton 2006) that appears to be lost in the latest iteration of the programme in favour of more goal-oriented leadership training and more clearly defined outcomes and goals (NCSL 2011). The concern has to be that a focus on organisational progress and improvement, whilst valuable, does not allow for the depth and quality of interaction between the individual and the organisation, or acknowledge the emotional labour of work which can improve ownership, integration and productivity (Hochschild 1983; Orbach 2008). Journal of Education for Teaching Vol. 38, No. 2, April 2012, 221–225

Exploring the Interplay of Leadership and Quality Improvement in Early Years Settings in England and Hong Kong.

An extensive search through existing literature suggests a strong inter-relationship between effective leadership and quality provision in early years settings (Earley and Weindling 2004; Sylva et al. 2004; Siraj-Blatchford and Manni 2006; Jones and Pound 2008; Santer and Cookson 2009; Ho 2010). What is not clear is how this relationship has come into being and how the one affects the other, if at all. We therefore have two key questions that we wish to address: